19 November 2012 2:49 PM

Gaza, Islam, Peace and Concessions

A few points arising from comments over the weekend ( I shall of course be replying to Professor Millican at length in a separate posting).

Is there an Islamist threat to this country? I don’t know for sure. What shape would such a threat take? Is ‘threat’ even the right word? Presumably, the alteration of this country into one where Islamic ideas predominated, or played a very large role in our laws and culture, might alarm many people, or seem undesirable to them. Then again, can this be described as a ‘threat’? This will be a matter of preference. Some people will very much desire it, for sincere reasons. Others most definitely will not.

Personally I would not wish this to happen. I have many disagreements with what appear to me to be Islamic practices and policies. Viewed simply as a political programme, without any thought given to its religious claims, Islam would seem to me to be less tolerant of disagreement, less sympathetic to the separation of powers, less pluralistic and considerably more patriarchal than Christianity, likewise viewed as a political programme. I also think its attitude towards marriage is significantly different, and I much prefer the (Anglican) Christian approach to that subject. I think these differences can be shown to exist, with reference to several existing societies where Islam, Sunni or Shia, is now established in authority.

What I am sure about is that, if there is such a threat, or promise as some might see it, or let’s describe it neutrally as a ‘possibility’, it comes from the growing numbers of Muslims now peacefully settled, living, and nurturing families in this country, far more than it does from the mythical ‘Al Qaeda’ .

Terrorist attacks are horrible, and grievous, but generally they cannot influence a strong-willed properly-led free society. It is only the modern habit of Western governments, of strengthening their own authority by claiming the ability to defend us against ‘terror’, or even to make wars upon it, that have fostered the illusion that terrorist acts are a major threat to Western civilisation, alongside the illusion that these can be reliably prevented or protected against by state action, new laws, surveillance etc.

I believe it is almost infinitesimally unlikely that I or any reader will be the victim of a terror attack (as unlikely, as I have said before, as that an eagle will kill me by dropping a tortoise on my head from a great height). Likewise, I think it most unlikely that our various ridiculous and overblown security organs can do anything to stop it, any more than the vast array of silly ‘precautions’ against ‘terror’ which have made life so much less convenient, and officials so much more arrogant, in the last 30 years or so.

In truth, even an attack such as the 2001 outrages in New York did not derail the US economy, incapacitate the operation of the state and its laws or damage the military power of the USA. Certainly the deaths involved were harrowing and horrible, and the methods adopted by the killers hocking and disgusting in the extreme. But compared with the actions of both sides in the later stages of the Second World War, even this , the worst Terror atrocity of modern times, is in fact quite small. Terrorism ultimately is propaganda, not warfare. Modern states too often aid that propaganda by giving such acts a political status (exactly what they seek) , instead of simply treating them as the crimes they are.

One of the reasons why neo-conservatives are stuck with this question is that they are mostly North Americans who support free movement of peoples (through open borders) for simple economic reasons (neo-conservatives are economic and social liberals, ‘conservative’ only about waging war, if that is in fact conservative) .They fondly imagine that it is politically unimportant. They are wrong. In North America, mass immigration has most certainly been driving a strong political, cultural and moral revolution, as those neo-conservatives are rapidly discovering at the polls. But in the USA it is overwhelmingly Latin American. There is a small amount of Muslim migration to the USA (mostly in Michigan) and also into Canada via Quebec, where French-speaking North Africans have been encouraged to settle by the local government, anxious above all to keep the French language on top. But they have nothing like the Islamic migration into Western Europe, which is driving social change in Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium , Italy and Germany.

This is already having a noticeable effect – and, while I haven’t yet read the book recommended to me on the subject, I’d point out that our establishment seems to have a strong desire to please Islam, in schools, in broadcasting, in the civil service, in foreign policy and in its general pursuit of multiculturalism and ‘equality and diversity’ which makes Christianity just one among many religions and robs it of its previous secure role as the established (if not widely practised) religion). For me it is the British state’s insistence on multiculturalism, rather than the migration itself, which has created this situation.

My guess is that, as the Muslim population grows, this process will continue more strongly. The moment at which we might have said ‘Yes, you are welcome but this is and remains a specifically Christian society’ seems to me to have passed. It will be very interesting to see how this is dealt with at the Coronation of our next monarch - which must inevitably come, sad as it is to contemplate the loss of our present Queen.

Likewise, the moment at which we could have limited the levels of migration has probably gone. It would now be politically far easier to leave things as they are than to place new limits of migration. This means that the current arrangement, under which more or less wholly Muslim communities now exist in several parts of the country, into which there is continued migration of young husbands and wives from these communities’ ancestral countries, will continue indefinitely. To some extent this will mean that these communities always remain at least partly first-generation.

***********

I’m grateful for many of your comments about Gaza. I do once again urge people to read the original report, which also mentions one or two other aspects of the Israel problem. I’m struck, by the way, by Israel’s propagandist naming of its current military actions ‘Operation Pillar of Defence’. This is obviously a propaganda name, dreamed up by a politician. The previous attack, wrong-headed though it was, had a suitably incomprehensible military name, chosen because it gave precisely no clue to the nature of the action - ‘Operation Cast Lead’.

I’m asked about Israeli settlements, as they are called, on land captured in 1967.First of all, let us remember that this territory doesn’t really belong to any nation. The last recognised legal holder, under a League of Nations Mandate, was the British Empire. Jordan occupied it illegally in 1948. Israel occupied it illegally after 1967. In the original SanRemo accords(which put the Balfour Declaration into practice), all this territory was designated for ‘Close Jewish Settlement’, a position which as far as I know persisted until the collapse of the Mandate and the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. If this is wrong, I’d be interested to hear. If that’s so, it’s rather hard to be rigid about the matter.

By contrast, all the land east of the Jordan, abruptly sliced off the Palestine Mandate and given to Abdullah by Winston Churchill (an episode brilliantly and rather hilariously described by Samuel Katz in his informative but propagandist book ‘Battleground’ and rather skirted round by more conventional historians) was originally designated for Jewish settlement, but then undesignated. Jews are now actually forbidden to live there. To the extent that there ever was a political entity called ‘Palestine’, a great deal of it is already firmly in Arab hands. The quarrels have all been about what was left over after ‘TransJordan’ was created and recognised by the League 90 years ago.

What I suspect the Likud government intended by building the ‘settlements’ (in reality solid stone and concrete commuter towns with every appearance of permanence and frequently located on defensible hilltops) was de facto possession whenever a final settlement came to be made. In diplomacy as well as in other matters, possession is nine points of the law, and since the Potsdam Expulsions and the Indian expulsions of the 1940s, world leaders have been very unwilling to embark on any more ethnic cleansing. I might add that quite a few Christian Arabs have quietly packed up and left the Middle East, as a result of unpublicised, salami-slicing religious cleansing by Muslims, and nobody much has protested, least of all the Western Christian Church which tends to view the Arab Muslim cause in this region as worthy of uncritical support.

We will have to guess how far Likud might be prepared to go in withdrawing from any of these new towns. It certainly won’t quit all of them, or relax its grip on Jerusalem itself. The secret of Ariel Sharon’s views on this topic has been locked in his mind since he was felled by a stroke nearly seven years ago. Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza (opposed by the current premier, Bibi Netanyahu) made many wonder if he might not at some stage do something equally bold with parts of the West Bank .

It is interesting to speculate on whether Sharon, Israel’s canniest and most brutal politician, and in my view an undoubted war criminal, might have used the Israeli Army and police to force Israeli citizens out of some of their West Bank homes, what the world would have made of it, whether his government could have survived it or even whether Israeli forces would have been prepared to force such a policy through. On the other hand it is hard to think of another figure in Israel who could actually have achieved any kind of withdrawal from the West Bank.

And yet, as I suggested in the original article, a practical compromise between the 1948 borders and the 1967 borders is probably the only realistic basis of a workable peace, whether negotiated or (much more likely and practical in my view) unrecognised and de facto.

No such covert deal is possible if things go on as they are. For anyone who likes all the peoples of the region, and wishes them well in their lives, it is all rather sad. But the sarcastic person who suggested that I supported the view that Israel had to make all the concessions needs to realise that support for Israel does not necessarily require a slavish swallowing of all the propaganda that Israel sends out. Everyone has made concessions for years, in many cases conceding their lives. If a lasting peace were available (and I’m not sure that it is) a concession or two would be worth making to get it.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Frankz
I don’t share your view of the Arab Spring but time will tell. As regards Muslim concern for Palestinians, I think it is all of the above – ie. the significance of the Holy Land, the sense of foreign invasion and the suffering of the Palestinians.
I don’t know why you think the Muslim world “rallied to the defence of Saddam Hussein”. It didn’t during Gulf War 1. Opposition to GW2 was strong just about everywhere including in the West because GW2 was illegal, pre-emptive and destructive.
On the comparison of Israel with apartheid South Africa, discrimination against Arabs is entrenched in Israeli civil law. Property law, family law, probate etc – that’s all official and codified. Can an Arab live on a settlement, Frank? If not, why not? Unofficially of course, discrimination is far worse. I suggest you read the 2007 UN report by Dugard. You say of the Boers that they “did not have a historical claim to the region going back thousands of years”. Well, my father owned a lovely red Toyota Silica in the 1980s. Somebody else owns it now. He doesn’t have a historical claim to that car. The claim of the Jews to the hundreds of Arab villages which had existed for centuries, and which were wiped out in 1948, has no validity in law or in fact. It is a claim based on personal spiritual belief, nothing more.
Your latest post mentions the UN Mandate to assert Israel’s legitimacy. Yet you ignore the various UN resolutions against Israeli expansionism or favouring the right of Arab return. Zionists like you treat the UN like a whore. Convenient to use when mood takes you, but otherwise treated as an object of derision.

@sid,
No I'm not encouraged by the Arab spring. It's looking more and more like a repeat of what happened in Iran after the revolution. Have you been watching the news lately? The only thing it shows is that Arab world can stretch the word Democracy to mean whatever it is they want it to.

OK, so we can agree that Muslim concern for the Palestinians has everything to do with Israel being considered a foreign invader and nothing to do with their plight as a people? After all if Muslims cared about injustice they wouldn't have rallied to the defense of Saddam Hussein a man who gassed his own people. It's kind of like when a guy beats
his wife and then complains about her not getting enough respect at the corner shop.

The world focuses on Israel because Muslims focus on Israel, let's get that straight too.
Your comparison with Apartheid South Africa is specious because there African people formed about 80% of the population, could never get any political representation whatsoever, had no almost no human rights whatsoever and were discriminated against in ways Palestinians can only imagine. This discrimination was also overtly entrenched in legal system. Their rightful place of abode was never decided by United Nations mandate. The European population did not have a historical claim to the region going back thousands of years. The list goes on.

There are reasons for Israel's immigration policy too. Israel has always been and needs unfortunately still to be a haven for persecuted Jews around the world especially now with Muslim intolerance spreading globally even into European countries.
There's a sense that Israel can be persuaded? Yes they have been persuaded and where has it gotten them? Perilously close to "National Suicide" as I think you put it.

Ok well we can agree on that much. The Arab world should be focussing more on extremism, injustices and abuses of power within their own countries than they currently do.
So why does the world focus on Israel? More people died in Rwanda in the 1990s after all. More Syrians have died lately than Palestinians. It's a fair question.
Partly it's the history and significance of the Holy Land. And partly it's a compliment to Israel - the sense that they are persuadable in these matters.
More people were dying in Cambodia in the 1970s when the world was focussed on South Africa. Maybe its because both South Africa then and Israel today have presented themselves as modern, civilised democracies, whereas Cambodia and Rwanda and Syria were / are basket cases. People have higher expectations of Israel than they do of Saudi Arabia.
For the Arab world I think there's far less outrage about Arabs killing Arabs than there is about Jews or Christians killing Arabs. I think that the former is seen as a kind of family argument to be sorted out internally.
But I think you should be encouraged by the Arab Spring, it gives the lie to the idea that Arabs don't want or cannot handle democracy.

The innocent Palestinians are killed b/c Hamas deliberately places their military assets and fighters amongst the civilian population. This is the fault of the Palestinians' own leaders, who care nothing for their own people, and are ready to sacrifice them for political advantage, such as that gained by people like you who blame Israel for deaths that should actually be laid at Hamas' door.

Kishke,i will post this final reply.ok to be fair to Israel they might be the only country in the world that gives their enemy water,power and communications infrastructure.The palestinians that the west weeps for are the ordinary people that are affected,not hamas,ive often heard reports where almost half those killed by the Israeli military had nothing to do with terrorism against Israel.i will also say again that to be against the actions of the Israeli government does not mean people are anti Israel or against the jewish people,but i will add that many people are not aware that the land of Israel is the birthplace of the jewish people they wrongly think that the historical ties are 65 years old instead of 37 centuries old,they do not know about king saul or about the jewish revolt against the romans almost 2000 years ago.no,when people such as myself are giving support to the Palestinians,the innocent ones by the way,we are against things like hostility in the settlements,the government favouring the jewish population over arabs,the Israeli military using disproportionate force in Gaza,although i know you say the force used should be heavier.it is though a big problem when terror groups such as Hamas see martyrdom operations as lawful in the eyes of islam,i have to admit,i do not have many answers and do not think many people do.

Sid, these are old chestnuts. If you cut me do I not bleed. I have respect for Muslims and in my life have known many I admire and some I considered close friends. The issue is political. I do not understand the preoccupation with Israel and how it acts as unifying force amongst Muslims when the problem to my mind is how to establish representative governments in the Arab world that can endure. I could get into all the issues you've raised but none of this will be resolved here.

Yes, Israel controls the airspace. If they didn't, they'd be in mortal danger. The blockade you keep banging on about is to keep these rocket firers from obtaining even more serious weaponry and being able to carry out their genocidal threats. Think for a moment. Israel's provides electric power to all of Gaza. If they wished to punish the Gazans, and gain a huge military advantage at the same time, they could simply cut off the power, they could impose a real siege, not just a blockade of weapons. For humanitarian reasons, they do none of these things. But none of that gains them the slightest favor in the eyes of the Westerners who weep for the Palestinians. The Israelis are expected to absorb rocket fire, terrorist bombs, without complaint or retaliation. They are not supposed to defend themselves, and certainly not in any "disproportionate" way, meaning in any way that would actually be effective. You complain that they do not allow Palestinians free access to Israel, conveniently forgetting that when they were allowed access, they perpetrated countless suicide bombings. Tell me, what do you propose? How are the Israelis to ensure their safety in the face of neighbors who are sworn to kill them and who act constantly on the threat? You natter on about the evil blockade against weaponry. Do you have another, better, idea? One that does not involve the destruction of Israel or the bombardment of her cities or the killing of her citizens as they go about their business. And if not, can you give it a rest already?

Kishke,please forgive me if i am wrong,but i had always thought of Gaza as a territory controlled by Israel,do they not have contol over its airspace and the seas?i have no answer as to why the millitants keep firing rockets at Israel,if i was to guess and its just a guess then i would say its because of the way Israel treats the palestinians,ie by way of freedom of movement in Israel or the preferential treatment of the jewish population,i am not sure if their aim is to control all of Israel,do most people in Irael believe this is true?one thing is certain,there will be no progress if the rocket fire continues.
do you have any solution in regards to land deals or even a full palestinian state?

No Frank, it's not socially acceptable these days to hate Jews - not in England at least. There's far more casual hatred towards Arabs. And if you're honest about it, the ADLs, AIPACs and the Weisenthals of the world are trigger-happy with their anti-Semitism slurs. To some people, every criticism of Israel is taken as an offshoot of the blood libel. Kristol, Kagan and Jeffrey Goldberg are constantly suggesting Israel's critics are anti-Semites. And hilariously, Jeffrey Goldberg was himself slurred with that charge when he dared to criticise Israel. That's like a snake eating its own tail.
Zionism as an ideology (the ideal of a Jewish homeland) isn't racist but Zionism in its modern application, in my opinion, is. I guess we will have to disagree. I don't see the Middle East like a cowboy movie where Israel wears a white hat and Arabs / Muslims (the forces of "darkness" in your worldview) wear the black hats. Everything you've said about the latter is exaggerated and misinformed. Have you ever had a meal with an Arab family? They're not so different to us. Perhaps you should skip rope with a Muslim, you might enjoy it.

I knew I was going to get this from you because I didn't spell things out. The reason anti-semitism and Israel bashing get confused is because that's the socially acceptable way to hate Jews these days. And the majority of anti-semites while dunces in most regards are at least smart enough to have figured that out. No doubt there are some people of good conscience troubled by Israel's actions. They generally voice their criticisms in the forlorn hope that reasonable behavior will result in a reasonable response.
But what they don't do is refer to people as Zionist appeasers as if there was some sort of international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.
Good luck to you and your mob majority.
You are embarking on a path that leads to a darkness from which there will be no escape. If you want to see it's true face just look at the farcical effects of the media produced catastrophe called the "Arab spring" in countries like Syria.
You will find the face that stares back at you oddly familiar.

"im sorry but i was talking about the country as a whole and not just Gaza"

What does the country as a whole have to do with Gaza? Why are the Palestinians in Gaza, where there are no settlers and no Israelis of any kind, firing rockets at Israeli towns? What does it say about what the Palestinians really want? What does it say about the possibility of peace with the Palestinians? To me it says that the Palestinians want the whole country "judenrein." They have achieved their Jew-free paradise in Gaza and now wish to extend it to the entire country. Is any accommodation possible when this is their desire? I don't think so. But what stands out for me is how you manage to ignore their clearly-stated aims, backed by their actions. Or perhaps you just don't care.

@Frankz
Congratulations old chum, you've used the goto WMD favoured by Greater Israel Likudists and Zionist appeasers the world over, namely to accuse Israel's critics of anti-Semitism. I was wondering how long it would take you. If faced with specific questions about Israeli terrorism, expansionism or racism, then change the subject. If obfuscation and distraction don't work, just smear your opponent as a closet Nazi (or if they're Jewish, just call them self-hating Jews). The trouble for you is that you've overused the WMD and it no longer works. Tomorrow you'll have to label most of the world as anti-Semitic (except for America and Micronesia or course). Is it comfortable, the world of self-delusion you live in? Must be like a womb.

@sid
No, Israel is the stable prosperous democracy of Arab dreams or maybe nightmares? You tell me. Maybe you can point out some beautiful Muslim examples of democracy?
Lets just say that in the hard knock prison yard of the middle east Israel is the model prisoner and up for parole. Yes, I'm aware that anti-semitism crosses all political boundaries.
No, it's just that the left is an position these days to do the most harm to Jews by pretending that fair play and justice amount to more than a dodgy spring break timeshare scheme in the Arab world and that if Israel just doesn't upset anybody everything will come up roses in the end. Everybody knows that's an impossible ask and a pointless task but they keep asking anyway. Why is that?
Funny how Arabs want to be a part of Israel though considering it's such a hostile discriminatory place. Oh but that's because they have all the money? There's a lot of poverty in Israel so that can't be it. Hmm, yes I was wondering how much of that aid was military assistance to deal with the fact that most of Israel's neighbours want her gone because they can't cut it themselves and war is the one thing they have a hope in hell of being successful at.
See everybody knows your game, it's not hard to figure out and you aren't even that good at it. But that damn multicultural halo is one thing they can't afford to let slip these days so Israel's just going to have to bite the bullet.
Don't make me say it again. Physician, heal thyself.

Kishke,im sorry but i was talking about the country as a whole and not just Gaza,i should have been clearer,i understand you maybe very pro Israel and wonder if you believe that there are any injustices in regards to the other side?

@PT: Oh, but Hamas does serve the interests of the Palestinian people. Are they not the democratically-elected government of Gaza? Elected by whom? By the Palestinians, who share their enthusiasm for the genocide of Jews. The blockade is against arms, and as such is entirely justified.

You say: "while settlers enjoy full protection from the armed forces."

What settlers? There are no Israeli settlers in Gaza. Are you not aware that Israel pulled out of Gaza seven years ago? Are you aware that since the pullout, the rocket attacks have almost never stopped? This has nothing to do with any settlers. There are none in Gaza. But you keep playing the settler song, like a broken record. Anything so as not to have to face up to the truth and to your own biases.

@frankz
Sorry to burst your bubble but Israel isn't the "stable prosperous democracy" of your dreams. In terms of prosperity, Israel receives more aid per capita from the US than any other nation, including any African nation. In terms of democracy, Arabs have lesser rights than Israelis under law (property law, family law, probate etc).

Israel is the only nation on Earth to reserve land on the basis of ethnicity. It is the only nation on Earth expanding its lawful broders. It was founded on a terrorist campaign whose victims included Arabs, Jews, British soldiers and a UN Peace envoy. Many of its Prime Ministers were terrorists.

Your characterisation of Israel's critics as leftists is naive. Israel has critics (an supporters) on the left and the right. This isn't a left right issue. And pointing out the deficiencies in Muslim countries is an infantile response to criticism of Israel. It's the "other people are doing worse" defence. Thieves in English prisons can indeed take heart from the fact that they are not murderers. But they are still thieves.

Kishke, as i mentioned earlier, i too believe that Hamas does not serve the palestinian people and they have some very backward,crazy and evil views in regards to Jews.
No as i say its things like the 5 year blockade,the many injustices that Palestinians face,many have family ties in Israel but are often denied entry,the ban on imports from Gaza, many extreme Israelis often go unpunished when carrying out crimes against Palestinians,while settlers enjoy full protection from the armed forces.
But you are quite correct in saying the situation will remain the same while rockets are fired at Israel.

@sid
Yes, I'm sure the threat of a stable prosperous democracy in the heart of the middle east grows daily in your mind.
Yes, as you point out Israel runs the risk of suicide on daily basis simply by existing.
Do they not know that militant Muslims are crazy? Yes they know.
Doesn't the left know?
Yes the left knows but they also know that the proper place for Jews is in New York not Israel.
Are Muslims welcome to practice their religion in every corner of the west? Yes.
Are Jews, Christians or Buddhists welcome in any part of the Muslim world aside from a few tourist destinations?
No.
Was there any international Muslim outcry to shake the world when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait? No.
Was there any international Muslim outcry on the same scale when Muslims were being ethnically cleansed in Bosnia? No.
Did the Muslim world mobilize to pressurize Bill Clinton to put a stop to the killing through armed intervention. No.
There were peace demonstrations designed to avoid it.
You and the left thoroughly deserve each other.
A pox on both your houses.

@Paul Taylor: As one who claims to have nothing against the people of Israel, i.e. Jews, I don't know how you manage to blind yourself to the stated aims of the Palestinians, spelled out in the Hamas and PLO charters, to continue their war until every Jew in "Palestine" is driven out or dead. Do you not see their genocidal yearnings? Does it not trouble you to support those who openly state their wish to commit genocide? Evidently not.

The Palestinians you feel so sorry for voted in Hamas, knowing full well what they stand for. They share and support their government's desire to kill Jews. (Not "Zionists" mind you, but Jews. They are quite clear about that.) This does not trouble you in the least. What troubles you is the fiction about an "apartheid state."

"Kishke,we hear that 150 palestinians died compared to 3 Israelis,so the response must have been severe"

Not nearly severe enough. They are the aggressors. The Israeli government should do much more to stop their aggression.

"I have nothing against the good people of Israel,only their government."

I don't believe that for a moment, although it's a common enough excuse among those who find fault with everything Israel does.

"The apartheid regime of Israel denies roughly 1.7 million people their basic rights"

Nonsense. They deny them nothing but the right to attack Israel. Were the Palestinians to cease their attacks tomorrow, peace would reign. Israel is not an "apartheid state." Arab residents of Israel have full rights as citizens. The accusation is a slander invented by the Jew-haters. You should be ashamed to use it.

"Gaza has been blockaded for over 5 years now,a situation that has caused a massive decline in living standards."

The blockade is against weapons only. Everything else is allowed through. There is no decline in living standards. That is propaganda.

Kishke,we hear that 150 palestinians died compared to 3 Israelis,so the response must have been severe.of course had it been 1 israeli death and 1 Palestinian death then that is still 2 too many.
I have nothing against the good people of Israel,only their government.
The apartheid regime of Israel denies roughly 1.7 million people their basic rights,Gaza has been blockaded for over 5 years now,a situation that has caused a massive decline in living standards.
The problem is the Israeli government and the militants,its a shame that its the general public that suffer most.

@Frankz
Thanks for your post. You list the "baggage" of the muslim community as including criticism and scapegoating of Israel. I agree that scapegoating Israel and the West is common in certain Muslim countries. It is convenient for corrupt leaders to do so and it also happens in non-Muslim former colonies such as Zimbabwe.
But I would suggest to you that criticism of Israel, given its policies (it is tiny yes, but far larger than the Palestinian territories, and Israel is growing every day) is justified, it is inevitable and it will only get worse. Netanyahu is the Jim Jones of his day, he leading his nation towards mass suicide. Israel will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will become an apartheid state, the South Africa of our century. Jewish voices of dissent such as Beinart and J Street are no match for the Greater Israel Likudist juggernauts AIPAC and the Christian Coalition.

Over the top how? In their effectiveness? Is it your opinion that Israel should do nothing to prevent the unprovoked attacks on their civilians? Or that they should do only precisely as much as is done to them? In fact, the Israeli government is obligated to protect the people of Israel. That is their duty. They are bound to use whatever means they can to stop these barbaric attacks. There is absolutely no reason for them to bow to the ridiculous notions of those people, of which you are one, who mask their antipathy for the people of Israel with foolish arguments for fair play in self-defense.

"and they are quite content with the mass murder of palestinian women and children"

In fact, the murderers of civilians are the Palestinians. The Israelis go out of their way to warn Palestinian civilians of attacks before they take place, through leaflets, text messages and more. They Palestinian modus operandi, by contrast, is simply to fire rockets indiscriminately at civilian towns and to leave bombs on busses.

I have a great sympathy for the Palestinians,many who suffer at the hands of Israel and also hamas.they are deprived of many things we in the west take for granted,such as freedom of movement,proper education and healthcare aswell as jobs.
Israeli response to rocket attacks are way over the top and they are quite content with the mass murder of palestinian women and children,why does the west continue to let this happen?

In reply to Amro .
But surely in your previous post did you not say They (terrorists Fundementalists ) go to different mosques. I quite rightly infered from that. These " different mosques" were dodgy. You now claim Finsbury is mainstream. As if its been cleansed of Mr Hook.
I would prefer it was rid of Hamsa by overwhelming Public concern .Very bad National publicity and the fact he was incarcerated awaiting extradition to the USA.
Had this particular individual kept a lower profile whilst preaching his hate . I'd hazard he would still be esconsed there.
I 'm afraid it just wont do,your claims . Hate filled imans still swim with comfort. Public opinion, may not always be correct .But your claims do not bear scrutiny . And neither does the latest claim from another, that only 3 percent here in britain. are Muslims . Royalist or trekkies. Rather than the Shia or Sunni's. Another try at comedy to hide the real issues. of a Dream of Eurabia.
Personally I think it impossible,even with the birth rates attributed. But much blood will, and is being spilt. in the meantime.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.